The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Page 5 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Guest on 11.10.11 10:57

@Lemain wrote:If you believe in the premeditated story and believe that the child died in the apartment rather than being abducted, then I cannot see any alternative to 'murder'.
There is nothing to prove the child died in the apartment, only that at some point a body was there.
There is also nothing to suggest that Kate or Gerry killed their daughter. Moita Flores said himself that, "the mystery lies with 1 or 2, of the 10 or 12 elements, who used to enter that apartment". We know about the 9 main charcters, but who are the other 3 players he is referring to? If Madeleine died at the hands of someone else known to the McCann's, they would not be responsible themselves of 'murder'. But if they know who did and are witholding that information, then I guess several other charges wold be more appropriate. Before you ask me what I think may have happened, all I am prepared to say is, if I am right then this case will never get to court and will be hushed up along the lines of Haute de la Garenne.


You cannot say that accidentally slapping too hard, or a child falling
off the furniture, or an accidental overdose/adverse reaction to drugs
is 'premeditated'. So 'premeditated' means 'murder', surely?
See above.

As for the McCann's lawyers advising them to leave the country....it is the lawyers' duty to protect their clients. It is also a fact that KM refused to answer questions
Yes she did, but you have already told us that is what her lawyer would have advised her to do. Did you not?

--- let's face it, the questions were quite clever and might have incriminated her.
Oh please!!. There was nothing incriminating in any of those questions. There was only one that might have been difficult for her to explain and that was No. 41, about handing over guardianship to a relative. Even so, it could have been answered truthfully and she could have explained the reasons for that decision.

Nobody is expected to incriminate themselves --
All criminals are given that right, which is why we regulalry see clips of them on TV, in an interview room after they have been convicted, with their arms and legs crossed, saying nothing more than no comment. Do innocent people also do this? I don't think so somehow, they would usually cooperate with the Police, as they have nothing to hide.

it's a cornerstone of most justice systems at least in the developed world. So, if KM was briefed as to the type of question she should not answer (one would expect her to have been briefed by her lawyers first, at this late stage in the investigation, surely?) then she had no sensible alternative but to refuse to answer. Now, if her lawyers then considered that there was a risk, however small, of her being detained in custody then they might well have advised her to leave Portugal directly. For that reason I don't think it's fair to consider that KM had any choice in the matter. Quite !!! We at least have to give her the benefit of the doubt because she is the one who is being accused. For that reason, I don't think that the departure of the McCanns from Portugal can be considered as evidence of anything.
Not evidence as such, but perhaps an indication of how things are likely to progess. winkwink
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Guest on 11.10.11 10:58

Me, can I ask you to take over for a while please, as I need to take a shower right now. big grin
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Me on 11.10.11 11:01

Stella wrote:Me, can I ask you to take over for a while please, as I need to take a shower right now.

I'm going out myself for a bit soon, but if i wasn't i would still fear we're going nowhere fast here with this poster!

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Guest on 11.10.11 12:32

@Me wrote:
It is possible to draw conclusions from both the decision to flee on lawyer’s advice and the refusal to answer the questions. thumbup

The decision to flee was based on a fear that the PJ had sufficient evidence against them. The decision to refuse to answer questions suggests Kate did not want to help the PJ in the investigation into her daughter’s disappearance, she did not want to assist the PJ in ruling her out as a suspect in the investigation and Kate was not prepared to help tie up the mass of contradictions and untruths in their witness accounts. clapping

And if that is the case you have to ask the question why would she act in that way and what does it tell you about her involvement and potential innocence?
Exactly. shark
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Lemain on 11.10.11 12:56

@Me wrote:However I do feel that your answers appear to be at best obtuse or at worst deliberately controversial.
You can believe the child came to harm and that it wasn’t pre mediated, as I happen to do at this moment in time. A child falling off the furniture can be an accident. I believe that is the case here based on everything I have seen.

I'm sorry you feel that way. This is a thread about pre-meditation. I started the thread to discuss whether people believed that when they set out from the UK, the parents had already decided that something was going to happen to Madeleine. That suggestion has been made many times on this board and much of the analysis of evidence available is focused on that issue. I said that if one believes that the 'happening' (whatever the 'happening' was) was pre-meditated then I can't see any alternative to murder. This was in response to a comment above "Are we about to be dealing with a "murder trial" then?" My view is that if pre-meditated, yes, it has to be a murder trial. Ameral whose book I have in French but read as soon as it came out, so don't remember it chapter and verse seems to agree about it being accidental, with a cover-up. All the evidence I've seen supports that. On a sheer probability basis accident is more likely, as the number of truly evil people in the world is, thankfully, less than the number of 'decent' people. You say that you feel the same based on the evidence available today. So we seem to be in agreement.

Sticking with the thread subject -- i.e. pre-meditation -- it is a vital distinction and has implications as to how to interpret the evidence being discussed here. If everything had been carefully planned fewer people would have been 'in the loop' and unless something went badly off-plan statements to police would have been much more sensible and in agreement with each other. Though I suppose there is an outside chance that it was pre-meditated, but went off-plan, forcing them to bring others into the story? There is also a chance that the McCanns' story is how it was and that there was an abductor who was a stranger....but I find that hard to believe. It doesn't fit enough of the facts for comfort.

Anyway, I can assure you that I am not being deliberately controversial other than a wish to stimulate a bit of debate. When it comes to looking at evidence -- be it forensic, scientific, archaeological, or historical -- it is useful and interesting to look at various scenarios and alternatives. It's also useful to have people prepared to challenge the evidence, or the conclusions. While I've never had any police training (other than watching Columbo ) I'd feel sure that a good investigative team would encourage all ideas to be floated -- at least in open meetings, and when things are not proceeding.

I was once investigated for murdering a member of my family. The police came and searched the entire house, taking evidence, and took me down to the police station for formal recorded statements. In fact, the deceased was very elderly and had advanced cancer. I was caring for him at home and we had some very powerful controlled drugs. The person had often asked doctors to end his life as the cancer had spread to his brain and not only was he in severe pain, he had lost his ability to reason -- which he felt was a greater loss than the pain. Anyway, on his last afternoon he took a turn for the worse and could no longer take fluids of any kind orally so I could not administer oral morphine....nurses and an out-of-hours doctor turned up in the night but with no parenteral morphine. And no drip, so he might well have been very thirsty. They might as well sent a song and dance act as a Dr with no parenteral morphine. He died at around 5am and I called the official services at 0830 when they started work. The Dr issued a Death 'Certificate' and then withdrew it, called the coroner and called the police! Actually he appears in the British records as having died twice! I wonder how many others have that claim to fame? Thankfully, I had kept a note of everything the patient had taken -- meds and food and liquids -- for weeks and weeks before. I told the entire story to the police just as it happened, with written evidence (just marked-up on our calendar, nothing complicated) and the toxicology came back supporting everything my notes had recorded. By being totally cooperative with the police and giving evidence of everything that happened AND my demeanour (I stated categorically that I knew everything the patient had taken orally and had recorded it). So they let me go home, and they let me book a ticket to Teneriffe for a turn of the century holiday -- I had been caring almost full-time for several years and was in need of a break, let alone the grieving process.

So I do know what it's like to be investigated for murder. I simply told it as it was but I had the luxury of knowing with total certainty that I was not a factor in the patient's death. Quite the opposite. I also had fair confidence in the British justice system. I was literally 'squeaky clean'....never had the patient suffered from lack of care.

But let's look at the situation where the 'carer' HAS let down the victim. In the McCann case nobody in their right mind can seriously justify the decision to leave such small children alone. The parents have to justify it publicly and I can understand that but in their hearts they must know that almost anything could have happened to any of the three children. It could have been Madeleine raising the alarm because one of the twins was in distress, for a start. There is no limit to number of possible problems and any rational person would know that without needing to think it through. They deserted their children and put them in extreme danger. Any and every discussion they have about the subject must have that black cloud overhead knowing that they, and everyone else, knows that they had let down their children by deserting them -- and not deserting for a good reason. They could have used a babysitter or taken a carry-out. That is going to affect their demeanour.

So I think that there need to be a few 'decision trees' to consider the implications of various possibilities.

Anyway, I hope that this has put a few things in perspective?

PS -- Edit: I was also interviewed by the coroner -- the same coroner who investigated Princess Diana -- and he was very much on my side, allowing me to ask very uncomfortable questions about the medical profession, in the Coroners' Court.

Lemain

Posts : 53
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Me on 11.10.11 13:44

@Lemain wrote:
@Me wrote:However I do feel that your answers appear to be at best obtuse or at worst deliberately controversial.
You can believe the child came to harm and that it wasn’t pre mediated, as I happen to do at this moment in time. A child falling off the furniture can be an accident. I believe that is the case here based on everything I have seen.

I'm sorry you feel that way. This is a thread about pre-meditation. I started the thread to discuss whether people believed that when they set out from the UK, the parents had already decided that something was going to happen to Madeleine. That suggestion has been made many times on this board and much of the analysis of evidence available is focused on that issue. I said that if one believes that the 'happening' (whatever the 'happening' was) was pre-meditated then I can't see any alternative to murder. This was in response to a comment above "Are we about to be dealing with a "murder trial" then?" My view is that if pre-meditated, yes, it has to be a murder trial. Ameral whose book I have in French but read as soon as it came out, so don't remember it chapter and verse seems to agree about it being accidental, with a cover-up. All the evidence I've seen supports that. On a sheer probability basis accident is more likely, as the number of truly evil people in the world is, thankfully, less than the number of 'decent' people. You say that you feel the same based on the evidence available today. So we seem to be in agreement.

My observation stems from your refusal to accept and acknowledge the points I, and others have put forward both in relation to the issues of their decision to flee and Kate’s refusal to answer those questions.

I accept and welcome discussion on the basis of you playing devil’s advocate but once we have addressed the issues you raise, I can’t see evidence in your subsequent posts of you moving the discussion forward by either acknowledging or countering the replies we have given to your ideas.

In relation to the idea of pre mediation in the killing of Maddie I can’t see how most sensible students of this case, given the evidence collected so far, could come to this conclusion. I think what we are looking at is, if you like, pre meditation in the cover up of her accidental death. That is hugely different to pre mediated murder.

Equally it is impossible to know whether death was accidental through the child falling off furniture or accidental in terms of overdosing on medicine given by the parents, at which point, perhaps manslaughter possibly enters the equation. The PJ think it was falling off the furniture and I tend to agree but one must consider the issues relating to no medication being found in the apartment (where did it go and why was it disposed of) and the saga off whether the twins were drugged.

@Lemain wrote:Sticking with the thread subject -- i.e. pre-meditation -- it is a vital distinction and has implications as to how to interpret the evidence being discussed here. If everything had been carefully planned fewer people would have been 'in the loop' and unless something went badly off-plan statements to police would have been much more sensible and in agreement with each other. Though I suppose there is an outside chance that it was pre-meditated, but went off-plan, forcing them to bring others into the story? There is also a chance that the McCanns' story is how it was and that there was an abductor who was a stranger....but I find that hard to believe. It doesn't fit enough of the facts for comfort.

Absolutely but as I say no serious poster believes there was a murder and that it was pre mediated. What is more relevant, and really should be the focus of attention is whether the covering up of an accidental death was pre mediated.

As far as I’m concerned the shambolic early statements and accounts given to both the police and family members heavily suggest to me that there was no pre mediation in the covering up to begin with, but over time, more work was done to refine and develop a narrative the Team wanted the world to believe.

Whilst the best laid plans can and do go wrong, there was just too many mistakes made to believe that there was an orchestrated campaign to cover up effectively the accidental death of the child.

Others may believe differently, I can only speak for myself, but there is nothing I have seen that suggests, anything other than an accidental death and then a “making it up as they go along” cover up which was worked on and refined over time.

@Lemain wrote:Anyway, I can assure you that I am not being deliberately controversial other than a wish to stimulate a bit of debate. When it comes to looking at evidence -- be it forensic, scientific, archaeological, or historical -- it is useful and interesting to look at various scenarios and alternatives. It's also useful to have people prepared to challenge the evidence, or the conclusions.

That’s good but as I have stated, in order to keep the conversation flowing we need an acknowledgement or challenge from you on what we have said to be able to move the discussion forward, otherwise we’re going round in circles.

We have no problem in going through the evidence provided the scenarios and alternatives you put forward fit with either what is known or what is logical or reasonable.

@Lemain wrote:While I've never had any police training (other than watching Columbo ) I'd feel sure that a good investigative team would encourage all ideas to be floated -- at least in open meetings, and when things are not proceeding.

I was once investigated for murdering a member of my family. The police came and searched the entire house, taking evidence, and took me down to the police station for formal recorded statements. In fact, the deceased was very elderly and had advanced cancer. I was caring for him at home and we had some very powerful controlled drugs. The person had often asked doctors to end his life as the cancer had spread to his brain and not only was he in severe pain, he had lost his ability to reason -- which he felt was a greater loss than the pain. Anyway, on his last afternoon he took a turn for the worse and could no longer take fluids of any kind orally so I could not administer oral morphine....nurses and an out-of-hours doctor turned up in the night but with no parenteral morphine. And no drip, so he might well have been very thirsty. They might as well sent a song and dance act as a Dr with no parenteral morphine. He died at around 5am and I called the official services at 0830 when they started work. The Dr issued a Death 'Certificate' and then withdrew it, called the coroner and called the police! Actually he appears in the British records as having died twice! I wonder how many others have that claim to fame? Thankfully, I had kept a note of everything the patient had taken -- meds and food and liquids -- for weeks and weeks before. I told the entire story to the police just as it happened, with written evidence (just marked-up on our calendar, nothing complicated) and the toxicology came back supporting everything my notes had recorded. By being totally cooperative with the police and giving evidence of everything that happened AND my demeanour (I stated categorically that I knew everything the patient had taken orally and had recorded it). So they let me go home, and they let me book a ticket to Teneriffe for a turn of the century holiday -- I had been caring almost full-time for several years and was in need of a break, let alone the grieving process.

So I do know what it's like to be investigated for murder. I simply told it as it was but I had the luxury of knowing with total certainty that I was not a factor in the patient's death. Quite the opposite. I also had fair confidence in the British justice system. I was literally 'squeaky clean'....never had the patient suffered from lack of care.

But let's look at the situation where the 'carer' HAS let down the victim. In the McCann case nobody in their right mind can seriously justify the decision to leave such small children alone. The parents have to justify it publicly and I can understand that but in their hearts they must know that almost anything could have happened to any of the three children. It could have been Madeleine raising the alarm because one of the twins was in distress, for a start. There is no limit to number of possible problems and any rational person would know that without needing to think it through. They deserted their children and put them in extreme danger. Any and every discussion they have about the subject must have that black cloud overhead knowing that they, and everyone else, knows that they had let down their children by deserting them -- and not deserting for a good reason. They could have used a babysitter or taken a carry-out. That is going to affect their demeanour.

So I think that there need to be a few 'decision trees' to consider the implications of various possibilities.

Anyway, I hope that this has put a few things in perspective?


So you should know more than most the illogicality in Kate’s refusal to answer the questions put to her, which weren’t, as you suggested (but not acknowledged) either clever or designed to incriminate. They were straight forward questions designed to add further clarity to the information received from other statements or claims made by them and their friends or to add more facts which may help complement the background information being assembled by the PJ.

Whilst there are, given the current evidence, innumerable possibilities in certain areas of minutiae of the known facts clearly an outline picture has been constructed upon the basis of the information and evidence gathered.

So whilst I like your thinking in decision trees it’s hard to place too much value on them in relation to the intricacies of details because we simply don’t know and there’s insufficient evidence to fill in all the blanks.

Clearly the McCann’s did let her down and part of the issue for many is the fact that they have refused to acknowledge this in any way shape or form.
Within the bounds of responsible parenting I think the phrase was which Gerry used. This failure to admit neglect or even letting her down adds weight to the suspicion against them in my mind. It’s almost as if they feel they can’t concede an inch because to do so would be to weaken their overall narrative.

Their whole defence relies on them justifying what is essentially the unjustifiable in order to keep the charade of abduction going.

However most innocent people would freely admit and be remorseful of the errors they made in this situation. That then asks the question, if they don’t genuinely feel in anyway regretful for letting her down given the way she was left, is it too big a stretch to believe they could cover up an accidental death and rationalize it in their own minds?

To me no remorse for leaving her demonstrates a hard or callous mind set, one of justifying unjustifiable actions simply to protect themselves. Given that type of mind set I believe this could make them more pre disposed towards being able to cover up an accidental death and make the PJ’s theory when viewed against the McCann’s actions more believable.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Lemain on 11.10.11 13:58

@Me wrote:In relation to the idea of pre mediation in the killing of Maddie I can’t see how most sensible students of this case, given the evidence collected so far, could come to this conclusion. I think what we are looking at is, if you like, pre meditation in the cover up of her accidental death. That is hugely different to pre mediated murder.

I'd like to (and intend to) reply to your post point by point but I wonder if we are speaking the same tongue? How can anyone 'pre-meditate' a 'cover-up' of an 'accident'?

I don't know which country you're from -- USA/UK or another English speaking nation but I cannot see how anyone can 'pre-meditate' a cover-up of an accident -- if they can, then the 'accident' is hardly accidental, surely? I've spent most of my professional life dealing in English with others of different English-speaking nations and those for whom English is a second language. We have to be clear what we mean by terms like 'pre-meditated'.

To me, 'pre-meditated' means 'planned in advance'. Indeed, to me, the meaning is identical. What does it mean to you?

Lemain

Posts : 53
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Lemain

Post by tigger on 11.10.11 14:01

I do realise that you genuinely want to have a discussion to 'get your teeth into'. But I feel that you are given to pick and mix evidence, e.g. dismissing the creche records and the phone records, both of which are of huge importance to trace movements of people.
Stella has done amazing work on establishing who else was in PdL at that time and whether this deviated from the norm.
That's what we're after and I think we're getting close.

My own opinion re the McCanns is just that they are a pair of chancers who took advantage of an opportunity. The actual form of this opportunity is still vague, but imo that is where the protection came from. I think the McCanns are either an acute embarrassement to the many people 'on their side' or an opportunity to make money from the situation. This has blurred the real issue no end.

I think the death of Maddie was something that was a possibility for a very long time. I still think the key issue is that she was neither a happy, exceptionally beautiful or healthy child. Her health records may now be with SY, I would hope, although they were denied to the PJ.

I still don't think either of them literally killed Maddie. Possibly - as I said earlier - a 'letting it happen on purpose' - coming back to late to check if medication had been too strong - that sort of thing.
The Fund and the many powerful connections that were in place within hours argue strongly for premeditation. But even that is easy if you can fool yourself, make up a plan 'just in case' or 'imagine what we could do for all lost children in the world if..'. I have found the catholic faith particularly suited to such thinking. Jesuits are famed for it I believe. I hasten to add that I have great respect for many of that faith whom I know and admire.

Not to make this too long: the PJ had two charges for them that would stick in Portugal, the hiding of the body after an accident or the purposely leaving a child in a dangerous situation which could do the child harm. Both charges mean a prison sentence.
Imo Amaral, who is probably better informed than any of us, stuck with the accident theory for the same reason. Privately, he may have a different opinion.

We are all doing useful work here, criticising each other, linking information. Not so long ago, we though Maddie was probably alive on the 3rd. Now it looks very unlikely indeed, thanks, amongst other information, the creche records and the phone records.

Just a little addendum: I worked as an archaeologist for many years; if you find say, a Roman skeleton, have it analysed and find it has lethal amounts of lead in the bones, what did he die of? Unless you sample the surrounding soils, check on nearby contemporary skeletons, you cannot be sure of lead poisoning. The lead may have leached into the bones post mortem. The whole picture is immensely important.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Me on 11.10.11 14:08

@Lemain wrote:
@Me wrote:In relation to the idea of pre mediation in the killing of Maddie I can’t see how most sensible students of this case, given the evidence collected so far, could come to this conclusion. I think what we are looking at is, if you like, pre meditation in the cover up of her accidental death. That is hugely different to pre mediated murder.

I'd like to (and intend to) reply to your post point by point but I wonder if we are speaking the same tongue? How can anyone 'pre-meditate' a 'cover-up' of an 'accident'?

I don't know which country you're from -- USA/UK or another English speaking nation but I cannot see how anyone can 'pre-meditate' a cover-up of an accident -- if they can, then the 'accident' is hardly accidental, surely? I've spent most of my professional life dealing in English with others of different English-speaking nations and those for whom English is a second language. We have to be clear what we mean by terms like 'pre-meditated'.

To me, 'pre-meditated' means 'planned in advance'. Indeed, to me, the meaning is identical. What does it mean to you?

I am in the UK but from up North, maybe that’s where the difference in language comes from! I was trying to make the point fit in relation to the term you used in the thread. As regular posters on here know i have a tendency to rattle on a bit to make the full detail of my points known, so if you are failing to grasp all the meaning in the detail i provide, no problem, just ask for clarification.

The idea of pre mediation in the covering up of the death stems from them being faced with a dead child and planning, in advance of announcing it to the authorities, of covering up the death and its cause, as an abduction. So a plan to cover it up was hatched BEFORE the child was reported missing if you like.

Hope this clarifies.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Lemain on 11.10.11 14:26

@Me wrote:The idea of pre mediation in the covering up of the death stems from
them being faced with a dead child and planning, in advance of
announcing it to the authorities, of covering up the death and its
cause, as an abduction. So a plan to cover it up was hatched BEFORE the
child was reported missing if you like.

Hope this clarifies.

Well no. Not really. You keep writing 'pre mediation' in your posts. I'm talking about pre-meditation. It's not a one-off difference, so I don't know if we both agree on the meanings of the words we are using!

so if you are failing to grasp all the meaning in the detail i provide, no problem, just ask for clarification.

Fine, I have no problem with that and likewise. It is VERY easy to misinterpret the written word -- there is no body language, vocal emphasis or other clues as to what the writer is trying to communicate.

Lemain

Posts : 53
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Me on 11.10.11 14:30

[quote="Lemain"]
@Me wrote:The idea of pre mediation in the covering up of the death stems from
them being faced with a dead child and planning, in advance of
announcing it to the authorities, of covering up the death and its
cause, as an abduction. So a plan to cover it up was hatched BEFORE the
child was reported missing if you like.

Hope this clarifies.

@Lemain wrote:Well no. Not really. You keep writing 'pre mediation' in your posts. I'm talking about pre-meditation. It's not a one-off difference, so I don't know if we both agree on the meanings of the words we are using!

The joys of using Microsoft Word and its "auto correct" feature i'm afraid! I know the meaning of pre meditation and that is what i was referring to.

@Lemain wrote: so if you are failing to grasp all the meaning in the detail i provide, no problem, just ask for clarification.

@Lemain wrote:Fine, I have no problem with that and likewise. It is VERY easy to misinterpret the written word -- there is no body language, vocal emphasis or other clues as to what the writer is trying to communicate.

Very true. I agree.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Guest on 11.10.11 15:45

@tigger wrote:The PJ had two charges for them that would stick in Portugal, the hiding of the body after an accident or the purposely leaving a child in a dangerous situation which could do the child harm. Both charges mean a prison sentence.
Imo Amaral, who is probably better informed than any of us, stuck with the accident theory for the same reason. Privately, he may have a different opinion.
This is a very important consideration tigger and one well highlighted.

As such, what about this as a possibility? Something that would be very difficult to prove and be a total nightmare for any Police Force to investigate:

1. The Gaspar statement involving David Payne and Gerry McCann.
2. David Payne was instrumental in the group booking, be it his idea or an idea put to him.
3. Kate feared going on that trip.
4. If it was not Madeleine McCann who attended creche from the 29th onwards, whose child did?
5. How did this other family come to be on that holiday at the same time, whose idea was that?
6. Could 1 person only, be responsible for a pre-meditated incident on that holiday?

Trust me, I have never wanted to consider pre-meditation. But I agree with Kiko. If the creche records one day prove that another child was being signed in as Madeleine McCann, as early as the 29th. A child who physically resembles Madeleine in every way. A child who in a phone call, could take the place of Madeleine. We should also consider that 'maybe', just 'maybe', someone could have pre-arranged some sort of fate for Madeleine to take place on that holiday, for some kind of personal or financial gain. Maybe neither Kate or Gerry knew anything about this, hence the comment "if she had an accident when we were not around, how is that our fault". They could very well both be innocent of her death. One or both of them, may not actually know how she really died, only what they have been told.

All I am trying to point out is, that there is a small possibility that both the McCann's are not responsible for their daughter's death, but easily succumbed to covering it up for professional reasons.

Perhaps this person is one of Moita Flores unidentified 3 and is also known to someone in that group?

Could this be a possibility ?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Lemain on 11.10.11 16:44

Stella wrote:Could this be a possibility ?

I doubt it. What do you think?

Lemain

Posts : 53
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by aiyoyo on 11.10.11 17:33

[quote="Me"]

You say the questions were quite clever and designed to incriminate. How, if you are innocent, and you answer questions truthfully, can you incriminate yourself? It’s impossible and a contradiction in terms.


I totally agree with you. No questions can be incriminating whether specially designed or whatever b/c how can truthful answers of an innocent incriminate them? It just is IMPOSSIBLE for that to happen. If kate fears incriminating herself it could only mean she was involved. The facts relating to the crime and crime scene are always to be found in the answers of the guilty invariably unwitting to the perpetrator. Kate's refusal to answer reflects she's something to hide and fear her own answers.
An innocent person would volunteer or invite police to ask them any and all questions and insist to the police to eliminate them so that the Police can concentrate on looking for their missing child.

What kind of lawyer would advise an innocent to flee the country if the Police has found nothing against them.
Besides, if kate's truly innocent why would she need a lawyer to advise her what to do or what not to do? Only guilty hires lawyer prematurely. An innocent might hire one if they're facing charges and wrongly charged.

More to the point, why would she blindly heed the lawyer's advice knowing that if she didnt get herself eliminated out of the equation she's hampering the Police work and hence the Police are going to draw their conclusion based on evidence gathered, and that coupled with the parents incooperative attitude constitutes circumstantial evidence to help Police formulate the theory the mccanns were involved; that they knew exactly what happened to Madeleine and knew that co-operation with Police will not give get them back Maddie but will get them banged up.

What is so difficult to understand about that? Even a kid knows there is no two ways about a logic as simple as that ie Police have to rule you out or rule you in. And if you don't cooperate fully with Police to rule you out what is left is the other alternative.

Irrespective whether people believe they were aided by lawyer's advice or not, to me they FLED - they legged it out as quickly as they possibly could the moment they knew the evidence led to them and the Police were onto them.
The mccanns were 'educated' cunning and manipulative pair who didn't need to pay lawyer just to tell them that - they would have done that (fled with tail between their legs) anyway knowing their pretendy game was over where the Police were concerned.
They hired the lawyer just to have them on standby in case they get charged. In any case lawyer can only advise accordingly based on client filling in the blanks for them of their situation and circumstances meaning lawyer assesses the situation based on clients provided info b/f they can advise appropriately.

If the mccanns were to tell their lawyer they were innocent, have absolutely nothing to be afraid of, and were determined to remain in PDL to cooperate fully until the Police satisfactorily ruled them so that Police can concentrate 100% on looking for Maddie's perpetrator in another direction, then in that kind of scenario, would any lawyer advise them to the contrary ie tell them to flee the Country? Err...I should hardly think so! Even if a lawyer were to advise that as a precautionary measure, an innocent would not accept a moron advice like that b/c what is there to be precaution about if you are innocent?
Conversely, in their shoes, if my lawyer were to advise that, I would change lawyer as it would mean my lawyer didn't believe in my innocence when he advised me to FLEE even after I'd explained my stand.


Lemain said "I suspect that the parents either know exactly what happened or were involved in the happening."

Surely that goes hand in hand. They knew hence involved - there is no two way about it is there?
They definitely knew exactly what happened to Maddie or they wouldn't have fled wouldn't you say so?
Else, why not stay behind to cooperate with Police; or why not return to do the reconstruction? What is better publicity than a televised reconstruction to help jog people's memory?

Even if there was no premeditation in her death, their comprehensive cover up plan was definitely premeditated...that must say something about their knowledge of Maddie's fate. THEY KNEW she is dead, else why the elaborated hoax? Else, all they'd to do it get themselves eliminated - simple as - but they didnt!
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 321
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Lemain on 11.10.11 17:46

You say the questions were quite clever and designed to incriminate. How, if you are innocent, and you answer questions truthfully, can you incriminate yourself? It’s impossible and a contradiction in terms.

There is no point in 'discussing' this -- it is fact. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination Right or wrong, that's how the law has been for centuries and all over the world.

Lemain

Posts : 53
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by aiyoyo on 11.10.11 17:53

[quote="Lemain"]
@aiyoyo wrote:

You say the questions were quite clever and designed to incriminate. How, if you are innocent, and you answer questions truthfully, can you incriminate yourself? It’s impossible and a contradiction in terms.

There is no point in 'discussing' this -- it is fact. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination Right or wrong, that's how the law has been for centuries and all over the world.


Excuse moi Lemain, mais ce n'etait pas moi qui a dit ca? Est-ce que tu peux le correcter stp?
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 321
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Lemain on 11.10.11 18:24

@aiyoyo wrote:
Excuse moi Lemain, mais ce n'etait pas moi qui a dit ca? Est-ce que tu peux le correcter stp?

Pardon, aiyoyo, ca va maintenant, j'espere?

Lemain

Posts : 53
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Questions and book in French.

Post by tigger on 11.10.11 18:48

@Lemain wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
Excuse moi Lemain, mais ce n'etait pas moi qui a dit ca? Est-ce que tu peux le correcter stp?

Pardon, aiyoyo, ca va maintenant, j'espere?

It just occurred to me that reading the book in French doesn't allow you to detect the nuances of the original. I found that even in Tv interviews, where e.g. when Kate says 'it's a cross I have to bear' (cue halo) it was translated as 'a burden etc' Quite a different nuance.

Re the questions, you can surely judge for yourself whether answering those specific 48 questions would be incriminating. They are available on many internet sites. I expect also the McCannfiles.
There are questions such as 'Have you stopped beating your wife?', which cannot be answered with yes or no without incriminating yourself.
However, as I recall, the questions were fairly straightforward and she could have chosen to at least answer some of them. Sitting there, muttering the 'mantra' f......g t.......r all the while, doesn't do much for her credibility: a) as a well educated member of society b) as a distraught mother who will do anything to find her child c) as a religious person. She could have tried to pray, ideal occasion I'd have thought.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Me on 11.10.11 19:02

@Lemain wrote:
You say the questions were quite clever and designed to incriminate. How, if you are innocent, and you answer questions truthfully, can you incriminate yourself? It’s impossible and a contradiction in terms.

There is no point in 'discussing' this -- it is fact. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination Right or wrong, that's how the law has been for centuries and all over the world.

You see this is why i regard your posts as obtuse. You can only incriminate yourself if the evidence you give implicates you to the crime. If that evidence does implicate, and it is truthful, then clearly you are guilty of the crime in question, agree?

Let me ask you a specific question and i would appreciate a direct answer:

If someone is innocent and gives truthful answers to questions posed how can the truth from an innocent party incriminate them to a crime?

It is my contention that it is impossible to do so, by definition. I would appreciate you explaining why you think an innocent party, telling the truth can incriminate themselves becuase i cannot follow your logic.

I would also ask you to provide examples of any other crimes where innocent relatives refused to answer questions put forward by the Police. I can't think of any.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Lemain on 11.10.11 19:13

@Me wrote:
You see this is why i regard your posts as obtuse. You can only incriminate yourself if the evidence you give implicates you to the crime. If that evidence does implicate, and it is truthful, then clearly you are guilty of the crime in question, agree?

Let me ask you a specific question and i would appreciate a direct answer:

If someone is innocent and gives truthful answers to questions posed how can the truth from an innocent party incriminate them to a crime?

It is my contention that it is impossible to do so, by definition. I would appreciate you explaining why you think an innocent party, telling the truth can incriminate themselves becuase i cannot follow your logic.

I would also ask you to provide examples of any other crimes where innocent relatives refused to answer questions put forward by the Police. I can't think of any.

No, read through the whole wiki item. You have not understood the whole basis of self incrimination. If I spill coffee on the carpet (i.e. I am guilty) and am asked by the authorities whether I had spilled coffee then I have three choices. a) Yes (the truth but self-incirminating) b) No (a lie, under oath, not permitted) or c) I choose to remain silent (which is my right under law and may not be construed as a sign of guilt in some jurisdictions).

It's just how it is, has been for centuries and that's that.

Lemain

Posts : 53
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Lemain

Post by tigger on 11.10.11 19:20

Have you actually read the 48 questions? It would help the discussion.

These are the questions:
1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?
2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)
3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?
4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?
5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?
6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?
7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.
8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?
9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?
10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?
11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?
12. Who contacted the authorities?
13. Who took place in the searches?
14. Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?
15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?
16. What does 'we let her down' mean?
17. Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?
18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?
19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?
20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?
21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?
22. Did you call Sky News?
23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?
24. Did you ask for a priest?
25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?
26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?
27. What was your behaviour that night?
28. Did you manage to sleep?
29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?
30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?
31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?
32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?
33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?
34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?
35. What is your medical specialty?
36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?
37. Did you work every day?
38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?
39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?
40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?
41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?
42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?
43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?
A QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER
Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?
A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'




____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Me on 11.10.11 19:22

@Lemain wrote:
@Me wrote:
You see this is why i regard your posts as obtuse. You can only incriminate yourself if the evidence you give implicates you to the crime. If that evidence does implicate, and it is truthful, then clearly you are guilty of the crime in question, agree?

Let me ask you a specific question and i would appreciate a direct answer:

If someone is innocent and gives truthful answers to questions posed how can the truth from an innocent party incriminate them to a crime?

It is my contention that it is impossible to do so, by definition. I would appreciate you explaining why you think an innocent party, telling the truth can incriminate themselves becuase i cannot follow your logic.

I would also ask you to provide examples of any other crimes where innocent relatives refused to answer questions put forward by the Police. I can't think of any.

No, read through the whole wiki item. You have not understood the whole basis of self incrimination. If I spill coffee on the carpet (i.e. I am guilty) and am asked by the authorities whether I had spilled coffee then I have three choices. a) Yes (the truth but self-incirminating) b) No (a lie, under oath, not permitted) or c) I choose to remain silent (which is my right under law and may not be construed as a sign of guilt in some jurisdictions).

It's just how it is, has been for centuries and that's that.

No i know all that, and using your example you have a right to remain silent. But the point is if you hadn't spilt the coffee what would be the motivation for choosing not to answer the question? There is no valid reason not to tell the truth becuase if you haven't spilt it then you have nothing to hide.

The only reason you would choose to remain silent is because you were guilty and you didn't want to incriminate yourself, which is the point i've been making all along.

Let me put it this way. The only valid reason to remain silent is because you are guilty but don't want to incriminate yourself. However the fact you have chosen to remain silent indicates guilt for that very reason. Innocent people do not remain silent becuase there is no reason for them to do so.

In Kate McCann's case the decision to remain silent is even less valid than your coffee example. That's because (and she was asked this question directly - in fact it was the only one she answered) in her case her refusal to answer actively hindered the investigation which was trying to find her daughter.

So not only was she refusing to prove her innocence she was also hindering the investigation which was trying to find her missing child.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Me on 11.10.11 19:25

@tigger wrote:Have you actually read the 48 questions? It would help the discussion.

I posted all the questions in a previous post. This is one of the issues i have with this poster. He/She poses questions, we answer them then he/she simply ignores what we have said and carries on regardless, pushing the same point over and over again without acknowledging or engaging in the replies we have given.

It's hugely frustrating.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

I've just added them to my earlier post.

Post by tigger on 11.10.11 19:27

@Me wrote:
@tigger wrote:Have you actually read the 48 questions? It would help the discussion.

I posted all the questions in a previous post. This is one of the issues i have with this poster. He/She poses questions, we answer them then he/she simply ignores what we have said and carries on regardless, pushing the same point over and over again without acknowledging or engaging in the replies we have given.

It's hugely frustrating.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Pre-meditated and planned long in advance?

Post by Lemain on 11.10.11 19:36

@tigger wrote:Have you actually read the 48 questions? It would help the discussion.

Yes, of course I've read the questions. The right to silence is enshrined in law. It might seem odd, unhelpful, and even incriminatory, but that is the law. In the USA the courts are not permitted to construe a refusal to answer as any kind of indication of guilt -- they call it the 5th Amendment. In the UK, courts can take the refusal into account as a factor, but they cannot convict on that alone. I don't know what the law says in Portugal but she did walk free after the meeting, so presumably she was not obliged by law to answer.

We could extend the discussion into the rights and wrongs of the law -- no doubt all first year law undergrads have a field day discussing it -- but at the end of the day the law is the law.

If her lawyers advised her not to answer then she probably took their advice. You and others seem to think this is something incriminating but I assure you that it is normal legal practice. When our policeman friend logs on later, I think from the USA?, I'm sure he'll explain how they do it over there....it is a bit different in the UK but that's explained quite well in the wiki.

If her lawyers said 'don't answer any questions other than x,y,z' then that's all she should do.

Lemain

Posts : 53
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum